3 Divine Attributes applied to F + S

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

The three verses which I quoted at verse one all apply divine attributes to both the Father and also to the Son.

Please address 1) John 14:23 where we read that the Father and Son both indwell us, which implies Omnipresence.

2) John 17:5; Father and Son (context is found at verse 1) exist together from before the creation and share divine glory, the words 'Father' and 'Son' are used at verse 1.

3) Hebrews 1:2; The Father and Son create the Universe.

Pleas edo answer these verses.

No, the attributes apply to the one God, whom Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is "the Father.

For details about the passages you referenced, read the book linked below:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What...8722578&sr=8-1

And, no, it isn't Father and Son creating the universe, it is God creating the universe.

Originally Posted by Chan

But is it as the Son that Jesus has the divine attributes?

Yes, please re-read post one and you'll discover that each of these posts use the word Son; so the Son is Omnipresent at John 14:23, the Son is eternal and possesses divine glory with God the Father at John 17:5 (note words 'Father' and 'Son' at verse 1) and finally the Son is the creator at Hebrews 1:2.

Hey is there anybody with the courage to reply to these comments on mine??

Originally Posted by Chan

No, the attributes apply to the one God, whom Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is "the Father.

Wow, so you too Chan, just like the Unitarians, JWs, Christadelphians and Way Interenational, deny that the Son is Yahweh God and instead claim that the father alone is God!!!!! I'll address 1st Corinthains 8:6 which you've misquoted:


“Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many. Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1st Corinthians 8:5,6-ASV).


Chan this chapter commences with an examination of various foods offered to idols (verse 1), and then the eating of such foods (verse 4). Paul continues to then make a contrast between these idols, and the one true God at verse 4. At verse 5 Paul then distinguishes between these idols whom he terms “so-called gods,” and the one true God of the Scriptures. He then goes onto say in verse 5 that in contrast to the one true God, there are many “lords and gods.” This is a direct reference to these aforementioned false idols of verse 1, and it is important to note that Paul used and links together both of the terms “god” and “lord,” as if they were equivalent terms.

Then in verse 6, the text does not state that ONLY God the Father is alone God. The text rather states that there is one God, and that the Father is himself this one God. So Scripture does not contradict the fact that the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4), are also called “God” in the Bible. Furthermore the Son (Hebrews 1:10) and Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25-27), also possess this divine name “YHWH” which is applied to them in New Testament quotations of Old Testament verses. So the one God is not the Father alone, but is rather the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So this problem is resolved if we understand that the terms “God” and “Lord” are interchangeable, their being equivalent terms used at 1st Corinthians 8:6 to distinguish between the Father and the Son each as deity. So to call the Son “Lord” doesn’t imply a lack of deity on the Son’s part. A similar example in the Old Testament is the use of the term “elohim” (God) at Genesis 1, but “YHWH” (LORD), at chapter two. These two terms are interchangeable, and don’t imply two completely different Gods, or two levels of deity for two separate divine beings, because they’re simply interchangeable terms. So “elohim” of Genesis 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 etc, is also said to be “YHWH” of Genesis 2:5, 2:7 and 2:8, they’re not different deities, but one God’s different titles.

So with consideration to the hermeneutical background, which we’ve now discovered in Genesis, notice that at John 20:28, Jesus Christ is called both “Lord” and also “God” within the same verse, just as at Psalm 35:23-24, from which John was originally quoting, Yahweh himself is also called both “LORD” (YHWH) and “God” within the same verse. John is therefore applying the divine name ‘YHWH’ from Psalm 35:23-24 directly to Jesus at John 20:28! So in each case, both titles are applicable to the same person. Then at Matthew 11:25 God the Father is here called Lord (Kurios): “the Lord of heaven” which according to some, a lesser deity, because at 1st Corinthians 8:6 you claimed that ‘Lord’ (Kurios) as applied to Jesus Christ, implies an absence of deity! Well then if your are going to be consistent Chan, with your own previous statements, then you must accept that if the Father is “Lord” (kurios) at Matthew 11:25, then he cannot logically also be “God” as well as Lord! So this ridiculous argument is hoisted by the petard of its own flawed logic!

Originally Posted by Chan

No, the attributes apply to the one God, whom Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is "the Father.

For details about the passages you referenced, read the book linked below:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What...8722578&sr=8-1

And, no, it isn't Father and Son creating the universe, it is God creating the universe.

It's not proper debate technique to tell people to buy books on Amazon, and then read before replying to yoru post. Either you can prove your subordinationist Christology (your denial that the Son is Yahweh God) or as in this case you can't.

I hope that the other people in thsi chat room take good note of Chan's Christology, he denies that the SON (I said SON) is Yahweh God and instead like the JWs, Unitarians and Christadelphians beleives that God the Father is alone Yahweh.

Originally Posted by Chan

No, the attributes apply to the one God, whom Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is "the Father.

For details about the passages you referenced, read the book linked below:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What...8722578&sr=8-1

And, no, it isn't Father and Son creating the universe, it is God creating the universe.

Chan I've fully addressed your quotation of 1st Corinthains 8:6, so would you now, please address my three posts in post one: John 17:5, 14:23 and Hebrews 1:2, thank-you. Most of the pople in this chat room seem to avoid my questions by simply raising more questions of their own, which isn't a proper style of debate. It's polite to answer the questions raised first, i.e. those in post one, before answering yet more questions of your own.

Originally Posted by Chan

No, the attributes apply to the one God, whom Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is "the Father.

For details about the passages you referenced, read the book linked below:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What...8722578&sr=8-1

And, no, it isn't Father and Son creating the universe, it is God creating the universe.

Chan look I've rethought my comments, which I can summarise as this: the Father is distinguished from the Son at John 14:23, both the father and the Son indwell the saved Christian all over the world today, both are Omnipresent. Please will you therefore explain this verse to me, for if the father is the deity and the Son the humanity as Oneness claims, how then can the flesh (Son) be omnipresent?

I hope that I've now made my position much clearer.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Yes, please re-read post one and you'll discover that each of these posts use the word Son; so the Son is Omnipresent at John 14:23, the Son is eternal and possesses divine glory with God the Father at John 17:5 (note words 'Father' and 'Son' at verse 1) and finally the Son is the creator at Hebrews 1:2.

Hey is there anybody with the courage to reply to these comments on mine??

Just because the passages use the word "Son" doesn't mean that it is as the Son that Jesus is omnipresent. You seem to completely ignore the fact that the SON IS BEGOTTEN. The fact that He was begotten means that Jesus' status as the Son had a beginning. However, since Jesus is not ONLY the Son, we can rightly say He is omnipresent and possesses divine glory. However, it is not as the Son that He possesses these.

George W. Bush is the President of the United States. If I say, "President Bush fathered two daughters who are now in their 20s," does this mean that George W. Bush was President of the United States at the time he fathered his two daughters? Obviously not. So also, just because scripture says certain things about "the Son" (Jesus) doesn't mean it was as "the Son" that Jesus was or did those things.

In Revelation it tells us that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain before the foundation of the world. Now, does that mean that at some point prior to the Creation Jesus was literally slain or does it mean that God from before the foundation of the world ordained that Jesus would be the sacrificial Lamb for the sins of the world? Obviously, it means the latter. So also, not every passage that mentions "the Son" means that it was as the Son that Jesus was involved in the particular event referenced.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Chan I've fully addressed your quotation of 1st Corinthains 8:6, so would you now, please address my three posts in post one: John 17:5, 14:23 and Hebrews 1:2, thank-you. Most of the pople in this chat room seem to avoid my questions by simply raising more questions of their own, which isn't a proper style of debate. It's polite to answer the questions raised first, i.e. those in post one, before answering yet more questions of your own.

Maybe if you stopped posting a series of long questions and posts and demanding every OP answer every one of them, like you do on EVERY FORUM you might be better results AND maybe if you reciprocated in kind and answer THEM it might work out better. Additionally MAYBE when someone gives you an answer you don't like because it puts a crimp in your strawman strategy, you might be honest enough to accept that what the person says they believe they do believe and you can dialog with them on that instead of trying to convince them they don't believe what they just said they believe